Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds 418
illeism writes "News.com is reporting that a California judge may force Google to give the feds at least some of the information it wanted. The feds may get some of Google's index of sites but none of the user search terms. From the article, the judge said he was 'reluctant to give the Justice Department everything it wanted because of the "perception by the public that this is subject to government scrutiny" when they type search terms into Google.com.'"
Less than originally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is OT... (Score:3, Insightful)
YES!!!!
At least if they really cared about their "Do no evil" policy. Sure, you can argue that the Chinese people are not really missing anything as without this version of the search engine they would not be able to use Google at all, but by obeying the government's demands Google has, for all intents and purposes, given their stamp of approval to Chinese censorship. If they had instead made
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
But, Google has to be ALLOWED in China first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:4, Insightful)
I invite those people to carefully observe how far backwards the courts can bend to appease the federal govt.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Interesting)
So why are republicans pushing for this law? It's because it goes much further then you have stated.
""Domestic Spying" which is 100% LEGAL,"
Lie
"as it does NOT target calls within the USA to another USA destination, and for those calls that are point-to-point in the USA the callers are "persons of interest in a Federal Crimina
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:2)
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
What George W. Bush really needs is a practical lesson in checks and balances: people need to make sure they're registered to vote and then, this fall, go out and vote against the Republican congressional candidates. Even assuming their Democratic replacements aren't any better, losing a few seats will help limit the damage that Bush and the Republicans can do.
We've had a disastrously planned war, spending increases that make the Democrats look like cheapskates, a massive deficit, an incompetent response to Katrina, a gulag in Cuba, they're chipping away at our civil liberties, and they're destroying the checks and balances that have kept this country running for the past two hundred years. All of this has happened on the Republican party's watch. With complete control of Congress and the White House, the Republican Party has been free to do whatever it pleases, and the result of implementing their ideas has been a disaster for this nation.
At worst, voting the Republicans out would result in total gridlock, with the government unable to do anything. But that would be a massive improvement over the way the country is currently run.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Insightful)
While I'm not fan of the current administration, I don't think that blindingly voting Democrats to spite Republicans. The problem is that there are too many people who expect the government to do everything for them. Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect m
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Informative)
And before you continue to slam those regions, check out what the US spends on health care versus those countries [huppi.com]. Bear in mind that these stats are from 1991. They are worse now in most areas except paid maternity leave (unless Bush rolled back those improvements too).
We spend more and get less. Nice.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Insightful)
To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat.
And since when did liberal Democrats wanted to reach out to Bush? Warming relationship with the US is one of their goals.
We spend more and get less. Nice.
My wife got an MRI in less than a week so that counts for something. If Canadian health
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Number without any health insurance: ~45,000,000
With Canada, you speak of the difference between an MRI in a week instead of months.
With the US, it's the difference between getting an MRI or not at all. (Any stats on how long it takes on average to get an MRI in the US?)
With Canada, you bring up the anecdotal evidence of one woman with multiple sclerosis.
With the US, I bring up the statistically sound evidence that the life expectancy of the entire country of Canada per capita is higher than the US, the infant mortality rate is lower than the US, the amount of money spent per capita is less than the US, the death rate is lower than the US (even if you subtract the US's obscenely high murder rate), etc.
Those with larger disposable incomes will always be more vocal about their right to cut in line on the basis of wealth than those below the poverty line. But rather than pooling their funds to get more physicians in the general workforce, they go for the quick fix that helps far fewer as long as the fewer includes themselves.
It's like bottled water. With all the money spent on bottled water every year, imagine what it would be like if that same money were spent managing the general water supply and enforcing clean water laws.
Canadian healthcare is far from perfect. Then again, it's like capitalism: the worst form of economic policy known to man, save all the others. US healthcare falls within the category of "one of the others."
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Interesting)
I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder. And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. (Perhaps there are other reasons for permittting it however.) For these reasons I am, no... was, pro-Republican.
But how do I weigh those really important issues against what Bush + the Republican congress has done to us? The deficits make me fear for my childrens' future. I think global free trade is probably a bad idea. His appointment of the inept guy to run FEMA prior to Katrina was truly, in my mind, a case of graft deserving of impeachment. And his administration's acceptance of torture, or near torture, as a good idea make me want to vomit - forget about have him represent my country. And of course there was the administrations basically dropping Microsoft's antitrust abuse culpability when Bush came into office.
It's so hard to balance these issues. Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again? This all makes me so sad...
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you could feel good about Feingold, Hagel, or (maybe) Mark Warner; possibly others... McCain and H. Clinton have shown themselves to be mere politicians.
Disclaimer: I am of the left side of the fence, sort of a "libertarian with a social conscience".
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:4, Insightful)
To choose an administration based on such marginal subjects is to miss the point.
The two parties agree on more than they disagree on, and use these highly controversial subjects to (incredibly successfully) distract the general public. Ever notice that the public is roughly 50/50 split on most of the issues that were debated the last few elections?
Ever wonder what WASN'T debated???
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Insightful)
Reluctance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Insightful)
doj asked for a million urls and 50,000 searches... "well," says the judge, "they've reduced that to much smaller numbers, so i'm impressed with their ability compromise, so i'm inclined to give it to them"
well hold the fuck on! discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything, and (b) being used to try to justify their own failed attempts at legislation
excuse me, but it's not google's job to do the government's homework for them.
Re:Reluctance? (Score:2)
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Informative)
from teh beeb [bbc.co.uk]
essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued
rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make
Re:Reluctance? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Reluctance? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get this at all really...suppose they pass a law stating that you need to make it harder for kids to find porn online. So then everyone will simply host their websites overseas, circumventing the jurisdiction of the USA and keeping their porn easily accessible. What does the new law then accomplish? Answer: nothing!
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand. You're opposed to making it harder for kids to find porn online?
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compromise is not the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
Compromise would also involve determining how much of the request would actually be meaningful - signal versus noise. Handing the Feds a bunch of noise would weaken the Feds' ability to do useful work. Which, given the useful work done since the Total Information Awareness cam
exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN work (Score:2, Interesting)
And it is bullshit, they shouldn't have to. Others have to pay a lot of money for this data, and google does
Re:exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN wor (Score:5, Insightful)
What? What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm going to do a search on google right now. I'll check back and see if you can tell me what it was.
HTTP in the clear is potentially viewable by a reasonably determined attacker, but that's a hell of a long way from "fully open to the public and viewable by all."
If it's not private, why is there a privacy policy [google.com] governing it?
-Peter
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Interesting)
B.
UnREASONABLE search (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case. Also it is not being used to prosecute anyone and the information, by itself, does not uniquely identify anyone. So this makes the whole issue a lot more complicated than simply slapping down the "4th Ammendment Trump Card(tm)" and walking away from the table.
Of course this great defender of freedom is also busy making sure Chinese people don't see tanks with their searches. Also, do you think that China allows Google to keep the logs from search request to google.cn private?
Re:Reluctance? (Score:2)
Isn't it the judge's job to determine Constitutionality?
Isn't the disagreement between Google & the DOJ what the case is all about?
You may not personally like or agree with DOJ asking for the data, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Why does the government need this data? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just not sure what they need this data for. Are the google search results that much different than MSN or "live.com"???
Re:Why does the government need this data? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the government does desire, however, is established precedent which permits it to seize information from any company, even when no actual crime is being investigated.
Re:Why does the government need this data? (Score:2)
But... they aren't trying to *break* thier case.
That is why they need this data.
Re:Why does the government need this data? (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to know if they are!
The perception is that google is used by more net-savvy people, whereas MSN (say) is used by the mum-and-dad types who just use the search button in IE. So, it'd be interesting to see how much the actual searches made reflect this.
I bet there's more porn in the google results :-)
You may be sadly deluded (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why does the government need this data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if google says no, and they give in, then they look weak. This government has had a "not backing down under any circumstances" complex for the last 6 years. Hrm, I wonder why.
Because they are paranoid... (Score:3, Informative)
Google's data it probably a better sample than the other two, and all three combined provide an excellent pool of numbers to derive whatever their statistitions are looking for.
But there may be more to it. I think they are also interested in establishing a precedent as well, a "toe-hold" they can try to exploit later for additional, and perhaps more invasive data.
Because the goal *IS* the invasion of personal dat (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to Google Bomb them (Score:4, Funny)
It's like a thousand al-Qaedas all at once.
That's how you deal with an intrusive government in Soviet America.
Re:Time to Google Bomb them (Score:2, Interesting)
Silly me. I always thought you could vote in qualified people that actually represent you, the voter. I guess as long as you simply vote for the guy with the most money, then that is what the candidates (and party) will represent. It seems to me that they are doing an excellent job of that. If big money is what gets them into office, it's because we vote for big money. Waddaya know, the system works!
Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.
The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case. Was it their public image that they thought this helped? Was it in their interest to make people think their information was safe with Google? Did they think it would cause Fox News to smear Google? (And how would that help them?) Is this information honestly going to help them get their preferred verdict? I don't see how...
Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, what? So my internet browsing habits are subject to scrutiny by foreign governments? I live in Canada. IMHO the US government should keep the hell out of my personal information completely, and should have not even the slightest rights to ever know of such information unless I actually enter their country. Otherwise, GTFO
BC Medical Records (Score:2)
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:2)
If you care about this, use a Canadian service provider. I guess Canadia could sign a treaty with the US providing privacy for your data, but... somehow I don't think that's going to happen.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that whole exchange has tons of stupidity and shows none of the participants in a particularly favorable light. OTOH, it demonstrates that you have views that I find so utterly repugnant that I would likely not be able to manage to sit quietly in the same room as you.
And by referencing it, it seems you want everybody to not only know that tomhudson is a git, but that you hold the opinions and viewpoints you do.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is why I long for a search engine that isn't based in the US, and which isn't subject to US law.
It's weird that the DMCA controls what comes up in my search results in spite of the fact that I don't live in the US; but that's almost incidental in comparison to the truly dreadful notion that my internet searching habits are likely, over the next few years, to become more and more subject to the scrutiny of a foreign, hostile, government. It seems pretty obvious that this case is just one step along the way to the US government conducting surveillance on pretty much everyone in the world.
Can anyone recommend any non-US-based search engines? The only one that I've managed to find out anything about is one that hasn't actually debuted yet, Quaero [wikipedia.org]; if there are others I'd love to know. I hope Quaero turns out to be half as good a search engine as Google (somehow I think that unlikely), but at least maybe it'll encourage the existence of non-US-based search engines.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:2)
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:2)
bwahahaha, you see, NOONE can stop us now!!!1111
That anything of this gets out at all convinces me they're on a trophy hunt and are keen to beat their chests about it.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, you know nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act.
1) There are no warrants under it.
2) You do not hear of people going to jail. They are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council.
It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.
scrutiny (skr?t'n-?)
n., pl. -nies.
1 A close, careful examination or study.
2 Close observation; surveillance.
That too is illegal according to our constitution, without a warrant for a specific charge looking for specific information.
Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.
I know if you live in the US, you should think more about this stuff.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:2)
sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
for the GOV to be undertaking this blatent fishing expedition (still convinced the gov is on the right path ?)
of course if Google had stopped logging every bit of shit that goes over the pipe this problem wouldnt exist, as they say "you have made your bed, now sleep in it"
Re:sad really (Score:3, Insightful)
How about zero search queries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about zero search queries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about zero search queries? (Score:2, Insightful)
So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?
The Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Me:
WTF? I hope you don't get paid for your legal brainery. Same goes for the mods that gave you insightful.
(NOTE: this post in
Re:How about zero search queries? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly the government should just ignore google and hiring someone good with writing a web spider and just crawl google for the data they want. Hell if they don't want the most recent results they could even hit the google cache for those searches
From forum (Score:4, Funny)
Some people should just learn to use google, not ask feds to force informations out of it, really...
Blade:Trinity (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever see the movie Blade: Trinity where the Feds try and seize the computers?
I wouldn't be upset if Google pulled a "Abraham Whistler" on them.
Google's records are none of their business and the courts shouldn't have standing to seize them.
Re:Blade:Trinity (Score:2)
Re:Blade:Trinity (Score:3, Funny)
Half the Feds hung their heads in shame and chagrin and went home. The others stayed for the practical demonstration of Second Amendment rights.
What happened to less government regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to less government regulation? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to less government regulation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What happened to less government regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no reason whatsoever that google should be forced to provide for the request other than the DOJ saying "Can we see your information?"
No law has been broken, no crime is under investigation... Can they come to my house next and ask to see the last 1,000 things I searched for? Why can they do that to google? This is insane and that judge is a moron.
What's the theory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?
Re:What's the theory? (Score:2)
See, that's the problem. They didn't want to get anything on Enron; perhaps too many people in the government would be implicated. (Just look at the government folks Enron met with in the year or two prior to their debacle. Interesting list.)
Since this is about people and their own personal "web experience with a happy ending," it must be too nasty for the kids to see. I know whe
Time to move servers again... (Score:5, Funny)
Could someone remind me what they need it for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would generate a few questions for me:
1. Who cares?
2. Should someone care, of course ALL of them do, sooner or later.
3. What do you need Google's database for? Too stupid to use Google?
4. Or too out of touch with the people you're supposedly representing to come up with "ordinary" search phrases?
Welcome to the new world (Score:3, Informative)
Live your life accordingly.
So how does this work for International users? (Score:2)
They're justifying it under the takings clause! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ware said that the reduced demand, coupled with the government's "willingness to compensate Google" for up to eight days of its programmers' time, had convinced him to grant the Justice Department at least some of what it had requested."
The government is claiming the data as private property to be taken for public use under the 5th amendment. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented, anyone heard of anything like this before?
Missing the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Gidari said that Alexa Internet, which is owned by Amazon.com, is a site that offers Web analytics services that can produce similar information "without entangling us in litigation going forward."
That point was raised repeatedly by Ware, who seemed concerned that if he granted the request, "a slew of trial attorneys and curious social scientists could follow suit."
"Now Google could face hundreds of university professors (saying), 'I've got a study I'd like you to conduct,'" Ware said.
Further on...
The dispute has elevated the prominence of search privacy, touching on how divorce lawyers or employers in a severance dispute could gain access to search terms that people have typed in. It's also raised eyebrows because Google chose to cooperate with a demand by the Chinese government to censor searches on the company's Google.cn site.
If the Justice Department does win this case, Google would likely face a second round of subpoenas from the American Civil Liberties Union for follow-up information. The ACLU is challenging the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, which makes it a crime for a commercial Web site to post material that some jurors might find "harmful" to any minor who stumbles across it.
The point becomes: if Google complies with this request, either voluntarily or by court order, then that open's a Pandora's box for any group that wants a crack at their data, to prove their pet theory or compile information to use in other court cases. Ultimately, the government doesn't care about the actual data. They'll find enough porn searches in MSN, Yahoo, and AOL to keep them salivating for a good while. But if they can't bring Google to heel, they will a) look powerless in the face of one of the world's largest Internet companies and b) lose any grip they have on the others, who will say "if Google doesn't have to do it, we don't either."
What's the point, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole reason the DOJ wants the records is to prove that filtering software isn't as effective as COPPA, no? So how exactly is any number of random queries or page indices going to prove this? Even if the random sample was all hardcore porn pages and search strings, there's no way of telling if it was a child who did the search (or viewed the page). And if they're not asking for IP addresses (which they claim they're not), there's no way to know if a search or page even originated in this country, right? So, in theory, the data the DOJ is after might contain the results of people looking at porn in other countries in which it isn't illegal.
So, basically, they want to prove that someone, somewhere, might be breaking a US law, possibly in a country where said law doesn't apply, as evidence to support said law. Brilliant. What's next? Since other countries allow boobs on TV, we should ban TVs here?
Re:What's the point, really? (Score:5, Informative)
Eh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1776 (Score:5, Insightful)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
A FASCIST in power is a tyrant, right?
The administration's CLAIM is that they want to sort the data to find the child porn downloaders. But all that means is they would like to be able to search in a blanket way, without first meeting the requirements set forth in the bill of rights.
From Article 4 of the Bill of Rights:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The article spells it out: blanket searches are unconstitutional b/c they do not spell out the particular place to be searched. Just saying "there's got to be SOMETHING on that server that's illegal just isn't good enough.
On those grounds, conducting blanket evesdropping on server(s) that THEY DON'T OWN is completely unconstitutional; furthermore, there is already a supreme court ruling which says they cannot perform ANY evesdropping on THEIR OWN servers. So they couldn't "work around it" by putting "snoopy routers" at various checkpoints.
Parking Garage (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose Google owned a parking garage with valet service. It lets people park there for free, with the understanding that you'd receive advertisements on your windshield. The Justice Department steps up and says it that Google should hand over the keys to every car so that the government can check them out, just in case.
And the judge is "reluctant" to give them what they want because it might somehow give the appearance of Big Brother.
Thanks for sticking up for us, Your Honor.
Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?) (Score:3, Insightful)
For five years now, "terrorism" has been the excuse to trample on all sorts of privacy concerns in the US, even though there have not been any terrorist acts perpetrated in the US since WTC, and there's been no hard evidence that intrusion of privacy has prevented anything. One of the major differences, though, is that the rooting out of Communists in the early 1950's started in the State Dept; the rooting out of terrorists today completely skips that and goes right for the citizenry.
Re:Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad that the American public can never seem to tie all of these 'issues' together...
Maybe Google shouldn't have the data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is it... (Score:2)
Perhaps because the oppressive regime has a few billion people who weren't already engaged in increasing Google shareholder value, whilst most of us here have been doing so for years.
Re:Why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is offering Chinese citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under Chinese law. Unfortunately under these laws Chinese citizens DO NOT have a right to privacy and DO NOT have a right to search sites censored by their government.
Google is trying to offer US citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under US law. In the US, there are constitution rights to free speech and to privacy (as interpreted by previous Supreme Courts). Google is trying to uphold these constitutional rights and the US Justice department is trying to circumvent these rights.
I fail to see how Google has done wrong by trying to protect the rights that citizens of a country have been given by their respective governments.
Re:Why is it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is it... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.
Apologies to Bill Hicks.... (Score:2)
Yeah. Thanks for turning the other cheek, Bub.
Re:Why is it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Time will tell.
Re:Only Because It's The American Government (Score:2)
Re:Only Because It's The American Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:skewed sample (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but when will they pack and leave the White House?
Re:Why should the government get free data? (Score:3, Funny)